Talk:Freemasonry in Romania
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1993 section
[edit]The problem with this “useful and relevant data” is that it fails several basic policies, such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CS. A bunch of dead links isn’t very convincing, and whatever information has been taken down suggests MLNR no longer wants it public. At any rate, I’ve salvaged what I could.
Perhaps creating a separate article on MLNR would be an option. - Biruitorul Talk 06:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
It is true that I should have explained a bit more than `useful and relevant data`, in all honesty I was pretty bushed after checking and double checking some footnotes and hyperlinks. However, about failing policies, I think that there was one asking to `please not bite the newcomers` :)... I did not change the 1993 section (aside from a text error, actually a word, in one phrase it stated `As at 2018 and I replaced it with `as of`) that you mention, it is there you may have found the broken or invalid links. I just introduced a 2020 section with about 20 footnotes and references pointing to absolutely valid articles in the Romanian media and fully trustworthy (and verified) sources. I actually tried to take extra-care that all data is properly quoted and referenced. Creating a separate article for NGLR (MLNR in Romanian, I think) may seem a solution, but on the other hand the text was about Romanian freemasonry in general and its recent turmoil, not about a governing body in itself, and/or its history. Also, none of the information I had compiled was the matter of a third party `wanting` it public or not. All materials stated and quoted ARE public, as I have already mentioned. And of course phrases or statements that are wrong or misquoted can and should be corrected - but I fail to understand how DELETING almost an entire page serves a good purpose. So if I may, I will re-upload the text, I am gladly open to any challenge to its verifiability and fairness, please let me and others know of any disputed or wrongful bits in it :)!... and many thanks for understanding. After a looong time of lurking and wanting to contribute, I had to begin somewhere and it's a lot of work :)John4Amar (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for the ambiguity, my comment was addressed to Timothy Titus, another user involved in a different discussion.
- Regarding the text you introduced, do see WP:UNDUE. This is a generalist introduction to Romanian Freemasonry covering 300 years, not a place to go on endlessly about insider maneuvering that interests nobody. Again, recent events may merit one or two sentences, but a text three times as long as that dealing with the previous three centuries is absurd. - Biruitorul Talk 01:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
That is a valid point, although by the the standard of `interesting nobody`, much of the internet is useless - and certainly a good part of Wikipedia. The events I had mentioned are not some `inside maneuvering`, but quite important - very similar to recent ones in France. And [[1]] stand proof of their merit. To deny one while accepting the other is, to my perception, a double standard. While I do agree that a past year or two could not be of the same length as the previous three hundred, one must admit that recent years benefit in all walks of life from more information than a century ago. I had read WP:UNDUE before my initial posting and still, to the best of my intentions, do not see any partisanship in my text - nor have you brought any proof or any civilized talk, or disputed its points. Just plain deleted it - and the previous section, in which I had no part. As for `going on endlessly` about a series of events, may I again politely reference [[2]] and its number one, to not REMOVE. AFAIK deletion isn't the way forward on Wikipedia, but common sense and a constructive approach. As you suggested, I will try to condense everything in a short paragraph and maybe introduce a separate article on the NGLR. I am open to any other suggestions to improve the quality and structure of my text.John4Amar (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for coming across as abrasive or hostile; it was not my intention. I agree that the best way forward is a short summary here, coupled with a separate article on MLNR, which can explore recent events in greater depth. Good luck. - Biruitorul Talk 04:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)